goodmanpeter

Speaking of a Convention Center Hotel, here are some thoughts that are not my own, but rather come from an architect I know who does big projects, hopefully his insight will generate ideas and open conversations.

Why put all our eggs in one basket ... why build just another hotel?

Why not build a two-for-one?

Why not build something that will generate income from the hotel ... AND something that will generate income even when the hotel isn't booked for a convention?

Why not build a hotel AND casino?

First, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs ... who already have experience building and running a hotel & casino ... are looking to build a 250 room hotel & casino in Cascade Locks in the Columbia River Gorge.

Next, there are Bruce Studer and Matthew Rossman who want to change the Oregon Constitution to allow them to build a casino in Wood Village.

Now, because it's closer to Portland, and a much shorter drive than it is to Cascade Locks or Warm Springs, the Wood Village Casino would kill both the Cascade Locks and current Warm Springs hotel & casino ... and the economic dreams of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.

By bringing the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs to the table, Metro, Portland, Multnomah County, and Oregon could craft a win/win.

First, there are the public safety benefits of having a hotel & casino on MAX so there would be less drinking and driving than there would be at either Wood Village or Cascade Locks.

Next, there are the environmental benefits of less driving.

Then, there are the economic benefits to the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.

And from the increased economic benefits come increased social equity benefits to the confederated tribes.

Dogs are, after all animals and animals are possessions ... if animals weren't possessions, then we wouldn't raise cows and pigs for slaughter ... in some cases to feed other animals ... like dogs and cats.

And it's terrible how the animals died.

But this is news?

Seriously.

This is the kind of cheap "news", I would expect from Fox.

Let's change the name of the paper from The Oregonian to The Dogonian.

We're in a growing crisis, we'd rather feel good than accept personal responsibility and deal with the problems we cause, and we're still living in the consequence-free world of Paris Hilton.

And I understand that you might not want to hear what I have to say, because it means that all the hype, marketing, advertising, and emotional "feel-good" that we've bought into over the years is turning out to be a big part of the root of the problems.

Fact: We simply have too many mouths to feed and not enough food to feed them ... so prices continue in a never-ending upward spiral ... it's the Law of Supply & Demand.

On top of that, to feed all those extra mouths ... TWO HUNDRED MILLION extra mouths in the United States alone ... we need to use more and more non-renewable resources like petroleum to manufacture and ship pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers to the fields where we raise wheat, corn, rice, and other grains that are the basis of our food supply.

And then we take part of those crops to feed to livestock so we can have beef, pork, chicken, eggs, and dairy.

We'd have enough food to provide for all children ... but those 200 million extra mouths to feed means that until we reduce the number of extra mouths, we'll never get ahead of the problem.

And did you see in today's Oregonian
http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/at-gas-pump-2011-was-the-year/112b232e8634462f93e4379a8b990aa4
that our family is paying 8.4% annually for gasoline? It's the highest percentage of our annual household income spent on gas since 1981.

The article didn't mention the hidden gasoline charges built into our food.

Hidden petroleum prices like the fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, for the crops.

Hidden petroleum prices for mining, shipping, and smelting ore for tin cans, the petroleum cost of manufacturing boxes and plastic bags, the petroleum cost of slaughtering the cows and pigs and chickens, the petroleum cost of shipping the packaged food to market ... and the petroleum cost of refrigerating or freezing perishable foods.

And burning all that petroleum means that we're pumping millions of tons of Greenhouse Gases into our air ... year, after year, after year to feed those 200 million extra mouths.

Those extra mouths aren't even human - they're pets.

Did you know that because dog and cats are meat eaters they eat higher on the food chain than we humans do?

Did you know that a dog also needs more daily calories per pound than a human? So an 80lb dog needs more daily calories than an 80lb boy ... in fact, an 80lb dog needs the same number of daily calories as an average 5'9" American adult male.

And the Carbon Paw Print ... the amount of Greenhouse Gases put into our air to bring the food to market to feed that 80lb dog is the same amount of Greenhouse Gas put out by an SUV being driven 15,000 miles a year, every year that that dog is alive.

And have you seen pet food commercials? It looks like the best cuts of beef, pork, chicken, fish and the best dairy, wheat, rice, barley, corn and eggs are being canned to feed pets!

It's sad that people who own a luxury like a pet are driving up the cost of food and gasoline for everyone ... it's especially sad for the poor.

And it's unfair that pet owners force the price of food up for people who live dog-free and cat-free.

And it's ironic that people who can afford to own a luxury like a pet are competing with their own pet for food ... but someone who has enough money to own a pet ... that can cost thousands and thousands of dollars over the course of its lifetime ... really doesn't have to care about the cost of food because if they had to care financially, they wouldn't own such an extravagance.

So to sum it up we have 200 million non-human extra mouths to feed. The costs to feed those mouths directly affects food prices and gasoline prices ... and indirectly affects gasoline prices with costs hidden in the price of food.

What can pet owners do to offset the problems they cause?

First, what pet owners can't do is pick up the urine they put into our soil and water ... or the fecal smears that remain after they pick up dog excrement ... USA Today did an interesting story
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2002-06-07-dog-usat.htm
about a huge minority of dog owners who say that even facing fines they will never pick up their own dog's feces.

What pet owners can do is the right thing for the Greater Good ... kids' futures ... and the environment, by offsetting the Greenhouse Gas damage they do ... pet owners can stop driving and start walking, biking, or taking public transit.

What can pet owners do to offset the way-too-high daily caloric intake of their dog and cat and the carbon-intensive ways of getting their pet food to market and the resulting high prices that make the the poorest among us go hungry?

First, feeding a pet local or organic food won't help ... and seriously, organic food for something that sniffs behind, licks down there, and drinks toilet water? C'mon!

Pet owners themselves have to eat lower off the food chain ... only by going Vegan can a pet owner do the right thing for the Greater Good.

It's hard to hear the facts and get past our emotions but the fact is that we can't go on pretending that owning something that directly competes with us for our own food has no real-world consequences.

And it's a sad realization knowing that owning a pet contributes to childhood hunger and poverty ... but now that we know, we know that every person who still wants to own a luxury like a pet can offset their more-than-my-fair-share-consumption by eating Vegan and not driving.

And given the fact that dog food is made with high quality beef, pork, chicken, wheat, dairy, and eggs, and this artificially inflates the cost of all food, one has to ask why are these people complaining about the higher cost of food when they are a large part of the problem?

Every single year, every single Portland park suffers damage, sometimes in the thousands of dollars per park, caused by just one group of people - yet a look at PP&R's budget for this year, last year, and next year share a glaring omission because to give the damage a line item in the budget would be political suicide for Nick Fish.

A short list of these yearly damages to our parks includes:
- holes dug in sports fields that lead to sprained or broken ankles
- toxic topsoil and grass that is unsafe to sit on ... especially for blind people
- wading pools that make children sick because chlorine is ineffective on some pathogens
- burned and yellowed grass that needs to be replaced
- trees that are injured and killed
- structures that are damaged
- toxic pesticides sprayed to try to stop parasites

And where are they in the 2012/2013 Portland Parks & Recreation budget?

This begs the question, why are they invisible costs? What is being hidden from taxpayers?

Why are taxpayers not responsible for any of the damage being kept in the dark about this unnecessary tax burden?

Why are taxpayers not responsible for any of the damage being forced to pay to support the people who are damaging our parks?

Why are there "user fees" for other PP&R programs but not one fee levied on the people damaging our parks and polluting our parks as if they are above-ground cesspools and septic tanks?

And who are these people who should be paying a fee to cover the thousands and thousands of dollars it costs to mitigate the environmental and structural damage they cause?

We can safely say that dog owners who are smart enough to avoid bringing their pet to unsanitary/infectious/disease ridden dog parks are some of the taxpayers who are being over-charged for park damage repairs and environmental pollution.

We can safely say that environmentally-conscious taxpayers who live dog-free are being over-charged to support a lifestyle they share no part of - and actually oppose on moral and scientific grounds.

The people who get a free pass but should be covering the expenses for the damage and pollution they cause ... especially in a time of cut-backs, layoffs, and shrinking budgets ... are dog owners who use/pollute/damage our limited park resources.

Why are these dog owners given a free pass ... when other special-interest groups who use our parks have to pay, and pay, and pay?

On top of that, according to the NWDA Public Safety and Livability Committee PP&R now has funding for only ONE Park Ranger in Portland.

Children are bitten in and near dog parks.

Women are assaulted in parks.

Heroin is shot up and contaminated syringes left where children can stick themselves.

Mr. Fish, ONE Park Ranger?

It's time for common-sense: An annual fee is in order, one that's used repair structures and detoxify the brown fields we call parks, where animals urinate and defecate directly onto our grass and top soil, which makes many of our parks ... especially the smaller ones ... too toxic for us to use ... especially for children, the elderly, immuno-compromised people, and blind folks.

First recognize that Multnomah County is the body that governs animal licensing ... and they do a lousy job of collecting the money that should be funding Animal Services ... only 25% of dogs are licensed in http://www.wweek.com/portland/print-article-10561-print.html Multnomah County.

The implication of this fact is that 75% of dog owners don't license - and because they don't they can also avoid the cost of vaccinating their dog against Zoonotic Diseases (zoonotic diseases are contagious infections spread from dogs to people)

With their lack of enforcement, Multnomah County Commissioners are giving a pass to funding Animal Services with licensing fees and so have to take money from Human Services.

So we have county government enabling the dog owner scofflaws who don't pay to license their dog(s) and don't pay to vaccinate their dog(s) in order to keep the public safe from the real threat of infectious diseases from their dogs. Way to go County!

Since the county is so lazy about enforcing public health and safety, and to avoid a conflict with it, the city should first, also stop enabling consequence-free destructive behavior, and second, start collecting a fee that spares innocent taxpayers an unnecessary tax burden - and doesn't step on the county's toes.

A "Portland Dog Park User Fee" would protect innocent taxpayers from another unnecessary tax burden by putting the fee squarely on the shoulders of the user ... not taxpayer.

And the fee would insure safer parks by verifying canine vaccinations.

No dog should be allowed into a Portland park without a city tag that verifies its Zoonotic Diseases vaccines like Rabies, Distemper, Leptospirosis, and Hepatitis are up-to-date.

Caught in a park with no dog tag?

Do what Vancouver BC does to dog owning scofflaws who don't follow park regulations: Post big signs telling dog owners they will earn a $2,000.00 fine ... and then enforce it.

And in addition to the "Portland Dog Park User Fee" tag, the dog owner must also carry a card ... issued by a veterinarian proving all of the dog's Zoonotic Infectious Disease vaccines are up-to-date ... every time the owner takes the dog to a park.

And some of that fee money should cover hiring Park Rangers specific to NE, SE, SW, NW, and North Portland.

So let's not be hypocrites and complain about one-time damage to two parks, while the yearly costs to taxpayers that happen year, after year, after year ... in every Portland Park ... go unspoken.

And let's remember that to a large majority of the 7,000,000,000 people on this planet who are not able to indulge in the luxury of owning a pet ... a luxury that even we average Americans can indulge in without a second thought ... pet owners are the 1%.

It's 2011, the pet columnist has been educated, educated, educated about the harms to the local and global environment caused by pet owners.

And the pet columnist has been educated, educated, educated to the fact that just to feed a dog up to two aces of land have to be taken from feeding people ... driving up food costs for everyone.

And the pet columnist has been educated, educated, educated to the fact that just to feed a dog the Green House gases spewed into the atmosphere can equal that of a Hummer ... and speed up Global Climate Change.

And the pet columnist has been educated, educated, educated to the fact than dog and cat lovers are NOT animal lovers since pet owners cause the ultimate form of animal cruelty ... slaughter of other animals ... to stuff them into cans of pet food.

And the pet columnist has been educated, educated, educated to the fact that non-renewable resources include petroleum.

But as Upton Sinclair once said: "It is difficult to get a man (woman) to understand something when his (her) salary depends on his (her) not understanding it.

And as Ayn Rand would say: "Greed is Good."

To feature a column in which the environmental pollution and social damages of owning a pet are compounded by driving them in a cab ... and she needs to stop playing the "old people sympathy card" because that's all she has left ... sends a clear message that the pet columnist and people like the ones that own the environmentally toxic cab company ... are Any Randian, Flat Earth, Global Climate Change Deniers who wants to keep their jobs ... at any cost.

It seems that Attorney Fish has found a way to gain progressive political points for doing heavy lifting without raising a finger at all.

Seriously ... he wants to allow people in cars ... in cars ... to "camp" in church parking lots?

Does he think we can't see the (fill in the blank) of this scheme?

Memo to Mr. Fish:

- People sleeping in a car can camp anywhere they want.

- People sleeping in a car don't need a church parking lot to camp in.

People with cars can camp near safer bathrooms ... and unless the churches plan to have 24/7 security on ... and near ... their campuses because of the mentally ill, drug/alcohol addicted, and homeless sex offenders and child predators likely to camp ... like flies drawn to honey ... near church property because there's no oversight off church property ... the likelihood of assault in a bathroom ... or an assault on a child dragged into a car near - but not on the church property ... will be greater on a church campus.

There's a better idea.

Because Mr. Fish and the The Oregonian Editorial Board feel so strongly about this problem, they should reassure the public and *lead by example*.

They should offer their driveways and garages for homeless people to camp on and this way Attorney Fish et al. can learn first-hand what problems arise, how to deal with those problems, and then - they can model their success for the rest of us to emulate.

Leaders leading by successful examples would encourage more people to do the same, and be a long-term win/win for all.

I've been lucky to live in many places and each place has its own culture.

As evidenced by the comments concerning this article, advertising in the local media, free local publicity, and day-to-day interactions, to its shame, Oregon is a state that cares more for dogs than for people.

Are there pockets of people who value their fellow human beings more than pampered pets?

Yes!

But they're only pockets.

And until those pockets become the norm ... and until Oregonians stop turning to simplistic and "humane" "relationships" and "bonds" with pets to unsuccessfully try to fill the voids that only complex and messy human relationships can fulfill ... this state, this country, and every other developed country with a population wealthy enough to afford a luxury item like a pet ... will continue to be mean-spirited, and treat members of its own species in a way that makes "petlessness" more of crime than "man's inhumanity to man".

To sum it up, after reading these comments, Oregon is a state where you're judged more harshly for being "inhumane" than you are for being "inhuman" ... and history records another state where dogs were more important than humans:

The Pet Columnist ... and Her Editor ... Need to Be More Grounded in Reality

The pet columnist continues to live in a consequence-free world.

And the pet columnist's editor should have done due diligence by insuring that before allowing a photo that promotes a potentially deadly practice to be placed in the paper and online, a little research should have been done.

Neither the pet columnist nor her editor seem to realize the power of a "cute" photo that sends a subtle yet powerful signal to readers that it's OK to kiss a dog.

It's not OK ... ever.

The Oregonian's own Board Certified Infectious Disease Prevention columnist, Dr. Phyllis Ritchie, recently wrote an article about the dangers of kissing a dog.

One has to wonder why neither the pet columnist, nor her editor read that article in The Oregonian ... and if they did read it, why do they refuse to live in reality and instead live in the consequence-free world of the pet owner ... like the multiple pet owner who wrote to Dr. Ritchie in the first place.

And Dr. Ritchie cautions us to wash our hands ... every time ... after touching animals (pets) "in your own backyard"... so you don't touch your contaminated hands to your mouth and make yourself sick ... or dead.
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2011/08/dr_phyllis_ritchie_dont_gamble.html

But the pet columnist blithely skips right washing your hands ... and promotes potentially drinking E. coli O157:H7 right from the tap ... by featuring a photo where an innocent teen has her mouth on a dog itself.

Where are the adults in the room?

There's more the pet columnist is being less-than-honest ... or uneducated ... about:

From "US News" On Parenting:
Pets Can Pose Health Risks for Children
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-parenting/2010/08/10/pets-can-pose-health-risks-for-children

Stop and think about the Law of Supply and Demand and how you're driving up the cost of food not just for everyone else on the planet ... but also for your own family ... and if you're a pet owner who's not able to feed yourself or your family because food is getting more and more expensive - blame yourself, pet lover.

The food that is going to "pampered pets" is food that should go to nurture hungry children.

In other words, poor, children are starving because of your actions, "doggie daddy" and "kitty mommy".

That makes that "awww isn't it cute" photo of the little girl alongside the animal that's competing with her for her food and natural resources a lot less "cute" and a lot more ugly.

And if you refuse to admit to these well-known facts, and if, after hearing these facts, you still call Pongo a "good deed" and put your "furry family member" over your fellow human beings ... you need to check your moral compass.

And according to this article, pet owners are actually going to human food banks to get food to feed their pets ... these lying and stealing pet lover/human haters are immoral and anti-social.

I won't have to pay $45 to park one car and $145 to park two cars in NW Portland - and then on top of that have to pay parking meters in "red zones" in the middle of my neighborhood.

I go to these meeting because I love my women friends and neighbors who have to park blocks and blocks away from their apartments, condos, or homes and walk alone ... in the dark ... on residential streets so close to bars that women are all-too-frequently sexually assaulted.

I've attended a number of the NW District parking stakeholder meetings moderated by the mayor in his conference room.

If you look at the proposed parking map you'll see that in the area with the highest concentration of small businesses, parking times have been restricted and that in areas with few businesses, parking times have been increased.

Business owners voicing concerns over this have been ignored.

You'll see that Zone K is now going to be kept distinct from Zone L which means additional city resources must be spent - and parking scofflaws like the above average income earners in the Pearl like the ones from Wieden & Kennedy who park Jags, BMW's, and Mercedes in Zone K for two hours and then move their cars across the street to Zone L for two hours and then move back to Zone K, can continue to not pay their fair share.

Additionally, The Oregonian reports that 140 people attended the stakeholder meeting this past Thursday in NW Portland that was moderated by the mayor.

Every person who spoke ... every single person ... both businesses and residents alike ... opposed Adams' new parking plan.

At that meeting, in response to one of my questions, the consultant hired by the city said that this parking plan is in no way, shape, or form close to being ready to be presented to the city council.

And in response to questions by others, the consultant said that important data needed in decision-making is missing/lacking.

It was also brought up that in an effort to raise money for the city, and in order to have equity city-wide, metered parking in NW Portland is the first step, and next, metering Hawthorne District, N. Mississippi, and in every other business district throughout the city will follow, and residents in those districts will need to start to pay for on-street parking, too.

Paid parking could become one of the hot-button issues of the city council race.

I thought they had turned it around, but one of the saddest things I learned the other night is the low regard that NWDA is held in by decades-long residents of NW who, one after another, after another told the mayor that NWDA does not make outreach to, or speak, for them.

Tavo Cruz is vice president of NWDA and I felt sorry for him and the other NWDA executives and board members ... good people ... as they were publicly lambasted.

And right now, just like all spring and summer long ... against the instructions of the city council to the mayor to save NW Portland from commuter parking ... NW Portland has no parking plan.

There is zero protection from commuters, First Thursday, or any Jeld-Wen post-season events and this flies in the face of the mandate the city council gave the mayor.

There is no protecting sleeping residents between 11pm and 5am from rowdy bar-goers who drive drunk, fight, urinate, shout, and vandalize, in spite of frequent requests by stakeholders most affected by the drinking to have a "tow-away zone - permit parking only".

In fact a "tow-away zone - permit parking only from 11pm to 5am" that extends 1,000 feet into residential neighborhoods that abut bars ... would be popular city-wide and reduce drunk driving and crime.

And for women who live in NW Portland, the city allowing bar parking in residential neighborhoods between 11pm and 5am means predators can park with impunity and hunt ... like the predator who parked and hunted the young woman he sexually assaulted after he spent a night drinking at the Marathon Taverna on W Burnside at NW 18th - and the woman who was hunted from NW 21st and sexually assaulted on a dark residential street - and the woman who was followed home from NW 23rd and assaulted.

The question is: Why - knowing that the attackers park on dark residential streets - isn't the city using a simple, low-cost public safety benefit like restricted parking from 11pm to 5am in residential neighborhoods to help prevent assaults on women?

I encourage everyone ... especially members of the city council ... to watch the full video of the meeting held on October 13, 2011 in NW Portland ... which oddly hasn't been posted yet ... http://www.portlandonline.com/mayor/index.cfm?c=52616 ... to see for themselves what a hot-button issue parking is ... not just for NW Portland ... but Hawthorne, N. Mississippi, St. Johns, and every business/residential node city-wide.

And I hope that Tavo Cruz and NWDA will make outreach to the many, many disaffected residents of the NW District who hold their noses at the mention of NWDA, so that instead of bickering and fighting and pitting neighbor against neighbor, and loss of legitimacy - a more inclusive neighborhood association will be met with cheers - not jeers.

I agree with River Rat, there isn't a single trail I've been on in Oregon where anti-social dog owners haven't left bags of dog fecal matter on or near the trails.

It's shame that Terry Richard - someone who should know better - is encouraging environmental destruction and pollution, and is encouraging dogs to be brought into the wild where their presence negatively impacts migrating, breeding, and endangered wildlife.

Sadly, an anti-environment article like this only diminishes Mr. Richard as a reliable source.

Thankfully, taking a cue from anti-smoking campaigns, Washington State, for environmental and public safety reasons, has banned dogs in its parks, so you're more likely to enjoy an honest wilderness experience and see more wildlife in dog-free Washington than in Oregon.

Can't you see these "design/marketing gurus" getting up early every morning for six months - collectively brushing the lint out of each others' navels - and focusing on what's really important and meaningful in today's turbulent world ... The Letter "P": Brought to YOU by the "P" Museum.

Speaking of "P" - I'm about due for a "P"rostate exam.

And ...

Speaking of "P"rostate - I'm glad that as a man - I can stand-up for art ... and "P" anywhere.

Why do out-of-touch elites donate time and money to animals when that money should have gone to feed the 20% of Oregon's children who go to bed hungry every night.

And in a world in which children are watching their mother and/or father die right in front of them for lack of food or water, elites ... who need to "feel good about myself" ... always pick the low hanging fruit ... animals.

Shame on every immoral person involved in putting animals before children.

Oklahoma! Is another big hit for Portland Center Stage and continues its tradition of outstanding musical theater which consistently rivals - and in more than just a few cases surpasses - productions in my home town, NYC.

Now, I'd like to change the topic for a minute and bring up a problem that transcends race - survival of our species.

It's a shame that Portland Center Stage - after three years of being made aware of it - continues to either hush me, avoid me, or placate me each time I try to raise their awareness of the problem they're causing.

Mr. Coleman mentions "progressive Portland's psyche", but in opposition to that progressive psyche, Portland Center Stage has adopted a Tea Party and Flat Earth Society platform concerning Climate Change and the role that all of us - regardless of race - play on the Global Stage.

Only Tea Party Climate Change Deniers would - in a city with one of the best tap water supplies in the world - sell bottled water.

Only Tea Party Climate Change Deniers - in a city that bans plastic bags - would put profit before the environmental damage caused by bottling and shipping water in plastic bottles .

And only Tea Party Climate Change Deniers would commit this anti-environment act in a LEED Certified Platinum Building (LEED Platinum means the Gerding Theater was built using the latest "green building codes".)

If LEED had an on-going tracking system that examined uses inside a certified green building after construction, and retaining LEED Platinum Certification was dependent on meeting environmentally-friendly criteria, then Gerding Theater would lose its certification.

Last night Mr. Coleman and the fantastic cast put on a dazzling performance.

It's a crying shame that audience members dropping plastic water bottles, handling and crackling plastic water bottles, reaching into purses for plastic water bottles, and slurping from plastic water bottles cheapened the production and all the hard work done by Mr. Coleman and the cast by distracting attention from important moments onstage.

And it's a crying shame that in a city with a "progressive psyche", Portland Tea Party Center Stage play acts at being green and pro-environment while the reality of plastic water bottles says otherwise.